On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 04:56:42AM +0200, Petko Bordjukov wrote: > On нд, 2015-11-15 at 19:16 +0200, Jouni Malinen wrote: > > SO_REUSEPORT is a pretty recent addition. Wouldn't this break build > > with older header files? As such, this should probably be protected > > with #ifdef SO_REUSEPORT or something similar. > > Yes, SO_REUSEPORT is indeed a fairly new addition to Linux. I could > protect it with an ifdef or I could just use SO_REUSEADDR. If I > understand correctly there is little difference between the two with > regards to multicast (with the exception of the UID checking for > SO_REUSEPORT). > > Having said that, I have not tested SO_REUSEADDR yet. I will and > depending on the results will either submit a new version with > SO_REUSEADDR or one with an ifdef around the setsockopt invocation. I think I'm fine with either. Taken into account the current implementation has been there for years, this cannot really be a critical issue and using SO_REUSEPORT with ifdef should be fine. > > It sounds like it would be safe to ignore the error and continue to > > get the existing behavior. > > Yes, it would be safe to continue. Should I make it just log a > MSG_WARNING and carry on instead? Yes. -- Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA _______________________________________________ Hostap mailing list Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
